AWB Rant- Why can't we strengthen it

[Cobia]

It bugs me to no end that both the current nutjob prez and the honorable John Kerry won't come out in favor of a stronger gun ban.

Why are the buying the gun lobby's argument that to support gun control is to want to lose the election??

Nobody is dumb enough to ban Elmer Fudd's squirrel gun.

And frankly I couldn't care if it is banned or not.

But an AR-15 apparently is little different than an M-16.

And AR-15s made after the ban, according to the VPC, are just as deadly as the one's made before.

THE FACT ASSAULT GUNS ARE STILL BEING MADE IS OUTRAGEOUS!

Please Senator Kerry take a hard stance and fight for a complete gun ban.

Rant off

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Oops--stupid comment.

Self-delete.

[Fescue4u]

2. because the tradeoff isnt worth

Was the now expiring AWB worth the loss of the House and Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000?

Personally I don't think so.

[FeebMaster]

3. If you can't get the current one renewed

how do you think you're going to get a stronger one passed?

"Why are the buying the gun lobby's argument that to support gun control is to want to lose the election??"

That isn't the gun lobby's argument.


"Nobody is dumb enough to ban Elmer Fudd's squirrel gun."

Haven't read some of the laws that have been proposed have you?



"And frankly I couldn't care if it is banned or not."

Well why didn't you say so in the first place?


"But an AR-15 apparently is little different than an M-16."

Yeah except for that whole one is a machine gun and one isn't thing.


"And AR-15s made after the ban, according to the VPC, are just as deadly as the one's made before."

And for once they're right.



"THE FACT ASSAULT GUNS ARE STILL BEING MADE IS OUTRAGEOUS!"

You probably mean assault weapons but either way you're wrong. There are some post-ban assault weapons still being made, but only for government use. Police departments and such. There are no assault weapons currently being manufactured for civilians.



Please Senator Kerry take a hard stance and fight for a complete gun ban.

hahahah. Good luck. If you want to ban guns, fine. Just be realistic about it. There is simply no way you are ever going to get a single law passed banning guns. To ban guns completely in the United States couldn't possibly be done in less than 20 years. It would probably take longer assuming you went about it the right way.

[thomas82]

4. Damn you beat me too it

How about it was a stupid law in the fist place?

Perhaps alot of people lost their jobs (House senate) over this stupid law?

Oh well they made a bad choice and it cost them. Maybe something will be learned from their mistake.
Tom

[LibraLabSoldier]

5. You make me physically ill

Just because you dont care doesnt give you the right to advocate that my rights are completely stripped without any due process of the law. SUVs kill more people than guns. So do cigarettes, domestic violence, simple battery, ect. Less guns will not make you safer. Actually, It will make you less safe. Criminals like knowing that no one is armed like they are.

You will notice I am not claiming that anyone has a need to own an "assault weapon". I am a soldier. My issued weapon is an M4a1 carbine. It fires 5.56 mm round. It fires a three round burst, or single semi auto matic shot. Every rifle I own at home is ballistically more powerful than it is. No one needs this in civilian life.

Machine guns are banned. Period. Leave my guns alone. Just because you dont care, and dont understand doesnt mean that you should advocate a complete gun ban. The whole idea is just absurd.

[iverglas]

44. now was that a nice thing to say to thomas82?

Me, I tend to save my vomiting for the truly (w)retchedly awful people of the earth. The ones doing truly vicious things to other people, out of naked, ugly self-interest. And there are certainly enough of them around.

I'm just afraid that somebody whining about being subject to limits on the firearms s/he may own really isn't one of the people to whom the truly vicious things are being done, and just isn't on the victim end of the things being done out of naked, ugly self-interest.

Man, get a fucking grip. If the thought of someone wanting minimal controls on the weapons you have access to makes you puke, your head is liable to burst when you find out what your comrades in arms have been doing to Iraqi children. (Talk about being stripped of your rights, not to mention your flesh, without due process of law, eh?)

If the disingenuousness of your "SUVs kill more people than guns" line doesn't cause you to be struck by lightning first.

[iverglas]

46. and by the way, I found this amusing

"Just because you dont care doesnt give you the right to advocate that my rights are completely stripped without any due process of the law."

Compare and contrast:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2247585#2247834

"More cops LESS LAWYERS, will reduce crime."

Makes that first bit sound even more like self-interested whining, when one sees how little you do seem to care about anyone else's rights and due process.

[LibraLabSoldier]

61. Iverglas

The fastest cutnpaste artist in the west...I was simply talking about the fact tha to have better law enforcement, you need more police officers. To keep criminals from getting off on BS, you need fewer lawyers, or at least a few with ethics.....

[Cobia]

6. What about 1986 and 1968?

There are laws on the books to ban guns and they have been banned.

What about at the state level?

[FeebMaster]

8. What about 1986 and 1968?

There are laws on the books to ban guns and they have been banned.

Name a gun that's been banned. Quote a law that bans a gun.


What about at the state level?

What about it? I don't know the laws of every state.

[Cobia]

9. Imported machine guns for one

Ones imported after 1968 are illegal

[FeebMaster]

11. That's not what you said.

You said: "There are laws on the books to ban guns and they have been banned."

Banning the importation of guns and banning guns is very different. What guns have been banned? What laws did it?

[Cobia]

12. FOPA 1986

Your good buddy Reagan signed it.

[FeebMaster]

13. What about FOPA?

It didn't ban any guns.


"Your good buddy Reagan signed it."

My good buddy Reagan? What do you think I'm some kind of gun grabber or something?

[Cobia]

15. Machine guns

Post 1986 machine guns are banned.

Want to own a UMP?

Can't.

[FeebMaster]

16. Machine guns aren't banned.

Post 1986 machine guns are banned.

They're banned from civilian manufacture.

[Cobia]

17. Are you a cop?

Then you can't own one.

No machine gun for you!

[enfield collector]

20. all I have to do is pay the $200 transfer fee

and pass the background check and I can have a M60, hell I can even have a chain gun if I can afford it. you should do a little more than just read what the VPC says.

[Cobia]

21. But you can't have a G36 now can you?

Can you?

Or P90?

[enfield collector]

23. if I want to go get a class III license I can. then I can buy all the

FA stuff for it's real cost, M16 for $700, Stens for $250 etc etc.

[MrSandman]

24. Self-effacing too

Cobia (131 posts) Sat Aug-21-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. Really?


I'll admit I know little about guns but if you say so.

[DoNotRefill]

42. Sure you can.

you just have to have the change required to finesse the system. I know people with FN P-90s. Hell, I know people with one-off prototype stuff that still has the (X) in the designation.

[FeebMaster]

22. Being a police officer isn't a requirement

for owning a machine gun.

[Cobia]

26. Only LE agencies can own post 1986 guns

And of course manufacturers.

But no peon can or should.

[enfield collector]

27. or dealers or people using them for other R&D purposes

[FeebMaster]

29. Did post-1986 machine guns become suddenly more

"But no peon can or should."

deadly than their predecessors?

[Cobia]

32. No but

Some machine guns were made after 1986 and regular folks can't own them.

[MrSandman]

34. Regulated rather than banned?

[FeebMaster]

35. Millions of machine guns were made after 1986

and civilians can't own them. Millions were made before 1986 that civilians can't own either. You still haven't explained what guns have been banned.

[Cobia]

36. HK G36 Rifle

It is banned for civilians in select fire.

Also Clinton wisely banned the imports of Chinese guns into this country.

I believe NO ONE can get them.

[FeebMaster]

38. Quote the law that bans it.

Also Clinton wisely banned the imports of Chinese guns into this country.

So did Bush and Bush, whooptie doo. Banning imports is not banning guns.


I believe NO ONE can get them.

That's precious.

[DoNotRefill]

39. It was Bush I, NOT Clinton....

who started the chinese import ban in 1989.

There are ways to get whatever kind of new manufacture machinegun you want legally. All it takes is enough money. Net result: No guns for the poor, all the guns that the rich want. How is that fair?

[MrSandman]

40. Tell the police in North Hollywood...n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

55. Canadians can.

No Norinco ban there that I'm aware of. I can legally get some Norinco parts from suppliers there.

[DoNotRefill]

41. Really? That's odd...

I have Class 3 guns that were imported after 1968. How can that be? Because I spent the money needed to legally get them by finessing the system.

Try doing that if you're poor.

[MrSandman]

7. Dude...

First I hear...

Nobody is dumb enough to ban Elmer Fudd's squirrel gun.

And then I hear...

Please Senator Kerry take a hard stance and fight for a complete gun ban.


:wtf:

[Cobia]

10. Complete assault gun ban

If some needs a rifle to shoot squirrels for dinner fine, but an M-16 or AR-15 is overkill.

[MrSandman]

14. What is an "assault gun?"

Pistols?
7.62 cal Rifles?...Most have more muzzle energy than the 5.56.
Shotguns?
Breechloaders?

[Jack_DeLeon]

43. Arent assault guns...

the guns they put on tank destroyers in WWII to take out tanks and fortifications?

I think those would be classified as Destructive Devices and thus not banned.

[MrSandman]

50. ...

:shrug:

[enfield collector]

18. dude do you know anything about balistics?

do you know anything about guns? the bullet used in the AR15 and M-16 is the .223 remington, which is a varmint cartridge. squirrels are........varmints, therefore and AR15 or M16 would be perfect for shooting squirrels.

[Cobia]

19. Really?

I'll admit I know little about guns but if you say so.

[LibraLabSoldier]

25. Here is a tip then

Dont talk about things you know little about. I am a gun collector, and an Active Duty US Army soldier. So I have more than a little knowledge about guns, their use, and their lethality. Ask me if you want to know more.

[thomas82]

28. Cobia you are clueless

perhaps you need to go to Disney.com as you seem to have no knowledge of gun laws. To start an argument/discusion it would be wise to research your subject.
Tom

[-..__...]

30. Need, need, need...

How many times has this "need" or lack of "need" thing been covered?

My current shooting demands or criteria has no real "need" for an AR-15
(I do participate in "3 gun matches" where I kind'a do "need" an AR or any of the commonly available "assault guns"). I suppose if I really "needed" to I could do with a substitute. Taking it one step further I guess I really don't "need" to participate in "3 gun matches" either.

Come to think of it, I really don't "need" to partake in any recreational firearms activities at all.

See, I guess I really don't "need" an "assault gun" after all.

Happy now? :)

Oh wait... I almost forgot <slaps self in forehead>; I'm not obligated to show, prove, justify or defend any "need".


"but an M-16 or AR-15 is overkill."

On which planet has this "need" for squirrel hunting with "M-16s" taken place? I hope you'll tell me because it sure sounds like a fun place to visit.

:eyes:

[thomas82]

31. Also I was wondering

Why would anyone take the opinions/info about guns from a Anti-gun site? That would be like me getting a review on a Toyata truck from a Ford website.
Tom

[MrSandman]

33. But

And AR-15s made after the ban, according to the VPC, are just as deadly as the one's made before.

even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut.

[thomas82]

LOL!!!

n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

37. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[iverglas]

45. are so many people really this dim ...

or are y'all just getting some practice in?

Does one generally practise shooting by filling a barrel with fish?

[iverglas]

47. well that was quick!

buh bye,

http://www.colin.cc.ms.us/finearts/paul_patterson.htm

R.I.P.

Now, anybody feeling a little

http://pointswest.blogspot.com/2003_11_16_pointswest_archive.html

?

Or were y'all really in on the joke all along?

[MrSandman]

51. Neither...

I found some inconsistencies...

MrSandman (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-21-04 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #21

24. Self-effacing too

Edited on Sat Aug-21-04 10:34 PM by MrSandman
Cobia (131 posts) Sat Aug-21-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #18

19. Really?


I'll admit I know little about guns but if you say so.

[iverglas]

49. I'll be gone for a couple of days

But I'm busting to know, and I'll check back when I return.

How many of the ... oh, let's say half-dozen + ... of our AWB opponents were just playin' along here -- and how many were duped?

C'mon, fess up. Disingenuous, or dim??

Or, as usual, option 3: ______________ ... whatever it might be.

[FeebMaster]

52. I didn't mistrust his intentions any more than

I mistrust anyone else's intentions. This is the internet, after all, where anyone can pretty much play at being anything. He played a very good gun grabber assuming he isn't actually a gun grabber. As you well know gun grabbing trolls have been banned before here.

The most suspicious thing about him was his repeated mentions of the Gun Control Act and FOPA. It's the rare gun grabber who has any idea what those laws actually do or that they even exist. Ignorance is strength and all that.

I don't whine about people with low post counts regardless of their intentions. If they get banned they get banned. If they don't, well they'll amass thousands of useless, trolly posts and will inevitably make their intentions clear to all but the most easily fooled.

[-..__...]

53. Geeeeezzzz....

Is that what Ivers pat-on-the-back post was about?... troll hunting again? :eyes:

(Hell, even a broken clock is right twice a day).

To be perfectly honest, I seldom (if ever), place other posters under a magnifying glass. Having a degree of mis-trust or suspicion in real life is one thing, but until a particular poster shows otherwise and gives themselves enough rope, I figure it's better to give that person the benefit of a doubt.

[happyslug]

48. The main reason is where gun design is coming from and going.

Military and Sporting firearms often share design features. For example the US preferred lever actions and single shot rifles before WWI. After WWI and soldier's experience with bolt action rifles, Bolt action rifles became the Hunter's firearm of choice.

Now the US Army started to design a Semi-automatic rifle to replace its bolt action rifle right after WWI. The problem was getting it to work. Some semi-automatic design had been around since 1900 but these required special cartridges and could NOT load even different types of Full-metal Jacketed Bullets (Given these weak cartridges it was found these early semi-automatics were wounding more deer then there were killing so many states outlawed Semi-automatics around 1900 for this reason, a ban most of those states have kept to this day).

With the M1 the US had its Semi-automatic design, but it was a complicated design to make and expensive compared to bolt action rifles. Thus after WWII bolt action rifles stayed the hunter's firearm of choice (This was reinforced by Remington's Model 700 and Winchester's post 1964 Model 70s, both much cheaper to make than their predecessors and the Model 98 Mauser their predecessor were "improvements" over).

Come Vietnam the US moved from the M1 to the M14 (a product improved M1) and than the M16. The Soviet Union came up with its AK-47. The M-16 was cheaper to make than the M1 and M14, the AK-47 was actually cheaper to make than most bolt action rifles. Thus a movement to these basic design since the Vietnam era.

For example the Winchester Model 1300 pump shotgun, its uses a rotating bolt which was invented (independently of each other) by Eugene Stoner for the M16 and Michel Kalashnikov for his AK-47. My 1300 is a pump but that is because Winchester when it designed the Model 1300 and Model 1200 Shotguns made sure the only difference was the lack of a gas system on the 1300 (This is the difference between most pumps and semi-automatics today, same design but the gas system not installed in the pumps).

This is an example of where firearm design has been going since Vietnam. When the Assault Weapon ban was first proposed its definition of an assault weapon was so broad it would have banned almost all of the semi-automatic sporting rifles and Shotguns being made in the US at the time. Congress accepted this as excessive and started to re-write the law to minimized its affect on sporting semi-automatics. With these re-writes the bill became one of outlawing certain features of a firearm as opposed to how it operated. Once that was decided the AWB became the joke it is.

Now various weapons were banned under the list, but if you re-named it and than removed the objectionable features you had a legal firearm that operated the same way as the weapon banned.

Lets look at the three big banned features, a folding stock, a bayonet lug and a removable 30 round clip. The maker of the AK just removed the bayonet, provided all of its copies with the non-folding stock the Soviet Union had designed it for and than redesign so that it uses special magazines for the new design not the millions of AK magazines made since 1947.

Colt did the same with its AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the M16). Colt removed the magazine lug (Which was rarely used anyway), and sold the new model with a 10 round magazines and told people that they could not legally use 20 or 30 round magazines in such a weapon.

The Chinese (who were importing SKS into the US) only removed the bayonets. The SKS did not have a folding stock, and was made with a semi-detachable 10 round magazine. The SKS was NOT banned under AWB, what was banned was the various retrofit kits to give the SKS a bayonet, a folding stock and removable 30 round magazines. Some of these kits lasted for years after the ban with notes "Not to be used on SKS imported after the AWB". Another company just took its retrofitted folding stock and removed the spring that made it fold and called it a "light weight stock". Anyone could go buy the needed spring, it was a standard US Coil Spring to make the stock fold, but as long as the maker did not include the spring it was legal to sell the retrofit non-folding folding stock kit.

What about my Model 1300 shotgun? Still being made, its MECHANISM was NOT outlawed.

This was the problem with the AWB, what people wanted to ban and wanted people wanted to keep were the SAME THING but under different cosmetic features. Congress wanted to do something, but instead of just banning magazine that held more than 10 rounds (Something I oppose but is at least defensible in effectiveness compared to the rest of AWB). It is clear Congress wanted to banned weapons which used such magazines. The problem is all of the weapons design since WWII were design to use large capacity magazined for that want the Army wanted. American Hunters go with want the Army wants.

The best solution to the AWB would be for Congress to finally decide to leave it die. In some ways I regret the end of the ban on large capacity magazine but no one is proposing just to keep that part of the AWB. If that had been proposed I believe many Republicans would have a hard time voting against it, unlike the AWB ban on "Assault Weapons" which in reality has banned nothing.

As I said above I oppose the 10 round magazine limit, I see no reason to ban such large capacity. The few times Assault weapon have been used in crime just can not justify the ban on such magazine (and given the price of such magazines from military surplus a better deal than the various 5-10 round magazines that have been produced in their place).

On the other hand the ban on magazines is a clear clean rule on a specific definable characteristics of a weapon. I may disagree with it but it is NOT the useless law the ban on "assault weapons" have proved to be.

[LibraLabSoldier]

54. Excellent, well put together post

Be prepared to be called a post apocalyptic tinfoil hat wearing psycho. LOL.

[UpsideDownFlag]

56. holy shit- a thread about the awb that doesn't involve eradicating it.

i think i see a pig flying outside my window.

[MrBenchley]

57. Wonder how an actual liberal opinion got into the gungeon?

The Democrat must have meant to put this in General Discussion...

[UpsideDownFlag]

60. i dunno, im feeling pretty lonely here.

[FeebMaster]

58. Yeah and the person who started it got banned.

Hahah.

[slackmaster]

59. Hilarious

n/t